Evidence of meeting #105 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
I hope the request is more detailed. Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it not true.
Conservative
Branden Leslie Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the member across the way for remembering that conversation prior to Christmas. Forgive me, but I'm still running on limited sleep due to that reality. If I trail off, you'll know why.
A lot of your comments didn't drive toward the point of the privilege motion, and I'll address a couple of pieces there. I agree that we should find pathways toward reducing emissions, and I look forward to the environment commissioner coming on Thursday. Having reviewed a few chapters and a few reports this morning—not necessarily specific to GHG emissions reductions, broadly speaking, but in some specific instances—I look forward to hearing some of his feedback.
Mr. Chair, I hate to disagree with you, but you mentioned that it's just this side of the aisle that has found we have not been given sufficient information. The reality is that we are on the third motion of more or less the same thing. The only way we can achieve this is with alignment with our Bloc and NDP colleagues.
Just as a refresher, this started with the first motion coming back with a public website: “Here's a link. Go and read the website.” Another motion passed, because that was insufficient, which led to a document that was created by...I don't even know who it was created by. They don't work for Environment and Climate Change Canada. They don't represent Environment and Climate Change Canada. They're still seeking feedback on that nine-page document.
The third motion had more or less the same intent to gather the information that was requested in the first motion and the second motion, and we dumbed it down, asking to just give us what we were looking for. It was very simple language. Shockingly, they came back with even less. They came back with three pages and, really, no information.
There's been a downward trend in the information being provided to this committee with each and every motion. In my view, in reading the response in the three pages of the third motion, there's no question that the Minister of Environment has refused the committee's order to produce the carbon tax modelling data and assumptions and all the components of the third, most recent motion. There seems to be zero ambiguity to me, and the response was crystal clear. They don't want to hand over this data.
In that response, ECCC admit they don't want to hand it over, and they noted that the information is protected under the Statistics Canada act. I will highlight that we don't actually have a Statistics Canada act. They misquoted the act they are trying to hide behind. It is the Statistics Act. I don't think it was intentional that they not only disregarded the views and will of this committee, but disregarded the act they're trying to hide behind. I will give credence to the notion that it was just an error. However, I assume that a response like that to a committee would have been seen by many people, and the fact that it wasn't picked up on is a little concerning to me.
When I think back to the early days of this Liberal government—I will try to park my partisanship at the door, because this is a motion of privilege and is about the supremacy of Parliament—it claimed that it was going to be the most transparent government in Canadian history and was going to be open by default. We have seen many examples across multiple committees of efforts to restrict information that has been requested by a committee. As my colleague Mr. Mazier pointed out, when we asked the law clerk about the response that we received from ECCC, we were informed by the law clerk that the right of the committee to obtain information is not restricted by the act. He meant the Statistics Act.
There are many precedents of committees having the right to order the production of government documents, and the government being obligated to answer. I'll give a couple of examples.
In June 2021, Speaker Rota ruled that the special committee on Canada-China relations was well within its rights to order the Public Health Agency of Canada to produce unredacted documents with respect to the Winnipeg lab incident. I believe it's appropriate to quote Speaker Rota. In his ruling, he stated:
...at the heart of the parliamentary system, and firmly anchored in our Constitution, there are rights and privileges that are indispensable to the performance of members' duties. Thus, one can read the following, at page 137 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:
By virtue of the preamble and section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Parliament has the ability to institute its own inquiries, to require the attendance of witnesses and to order the production of documents, rights which are fundamental to its proper functioning. These rights are as old as Parliament itself.
This ruling builds on a previous ruling by Speaker Milliken from back in 2010 with respect to accessing documents related to Afghanistan. At that time, the government of the day argued that national security implications should be considered due to their sensitivities. However, Speaker Milliken did not agree with that argument. In his ruling, Speaker Milliken, at page 2042 of Debates, responded as follows to the government's objections:
To accept such a notion would completely undermine the importance of the role of parliamentarians in holding the government to account.
Before us are issues that question the very foundations upon which our parliamentary system is built. In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, adds this at page 985:
No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers....
Mr. Chair, you have been here a long time and you're a respected member. I believe you would agree with me that upholding the rights and privileges of members of Parliament is paramount. With ECCC admitting they are simply refusing to hand over the carbon tax modelling, data and assumptions and all that was requested within the motion, it can leave no doubt to any reasonable person that they are trying to thwart this committee's order to produce documents, which was passed three times in three different versions.
In my view, that leaves no ambiguity for the chair of this committee to rule that our privileges as members have been breached. I'll conclude by saying that I truly believe it would be “wacko” to rule otherwise.
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, I think that if a word is ruled to be unparliamentary in the House of Commons, it is probably unparliamentary at committee as well. Mr. Leslie might want to withdraw it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
I'm not sure how he spelled it, so I'm not sure exactly what....
Liberal
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
On the issue at hand, perhaps I would like to correct the record.
Mr. van Koeverden started by correcting it, saying that Canada is on track to meeting its targets. The environment commissioner has made it fairly clear that when it comes to our 2030 targets, we are not on track to meeting even the low end of the Liberals' 40% to 45%. Mr. van Koeverden mentioned the interim target of 2026, but went on to say that the government is on track broadly to meeting its targets. That's not accurate.
I think it's very important that we are careful and judicious when we're talking about this, because Canada has missed every single target.
Liberal
Adam van Koeverden Liberal Milton, ON
Thanks.
I very specifically said it was the 2026 target in my intervention, as the 2026 target was the one Canada's environment and sustainable development commissioner was referring to. The NDP consistently says we've missed targets. We haven't had any other targets, and we're on target to reaching our goal for 2026.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. That's not the subject of the discussion here.
The only reason I'm going through this speaking list, which I'm not obligated to do, is that I'm trying to better understand the crux of the issue, which is whether Environment Canada produced the information Mr. Mazier and the committee asked for.
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
Mr. Chair, because you allowed Mr. van Koeverden to correct the record, I would like the same leeway in my comments.
He mentioned 2026 initially, but went on to say we are on track to meeting our targets. I want to make it very clear that we are not.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Understood.
Are there any comments about the document that was provided by the department?
NDP
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
I agree that the first two responses from ECCC were woefully inadequate, and sending a link to a website is unacceptable. The documents the department sent with regard to the second motion were also clearly inadequate. They didn't have the information that I would have liked to see. That's why I worked with all parties, and we were able to find support for a third motion.
The data that came back in this was helpful. I found it helpful, and I also found it interesting that the department also attached a second document with the Canadian Climate Institute's report on carbon pricing. I think that report really shows that carbon pricing is an essential tool in our tool box when it comes to tackling the climate crisis. It also shows that consumer pricing and industrial carbon pricing, these two pieces, are doing different amounts when it comes to bringing down our emissions.
I am committed to building a climate plan that makes big polluters pay, that brings down the costs for Canadians, that meets our emissions targets and that really unifies people when it comes to tackling the climate crisis. I think the document from the Canadian Climate Institute that was attached by ECCC highlights in some ways how the government has fixated on its own specific design of consumer carbon pricing, maybe to the detriment.... It may not be the best and only way to tackle the climate crisis, and the government has used it as a political wedge.
When you look at those documents, you see that one of them says the consumer price will contribute 8% to 14% to Canada's emissions reduction plan, whereas if you look at the industrial carbon pricing system, the system that makes the biggest polluters pay what they owe, you see that it's projected to do more than any other policy to cut emissions, delivering between 20% and 48% of Canada's emissions reductions. Going back to what the Conservatives initially were asking about—the comments made by ECCC about whether this contribution was actually a third of Canada's emissions reduction plan—the document from the Canadian Climate Institute shows that 8% to 14% plus 20% to 48% fall within that and back up the comments made at the environment committee.
It is critical that we strengthen climate policies to hold big oil and gas accountable and to get the deepest emissions reductions. It's disappointing to me that we are often talking solely about consumer carbon pricing when clearly industrial carbon pricing and carbon pricing on the biggest emitters—big oil and gas—are doing the bulk of emissions reduction and are projected to do the bulk of emissions reduction. It's really concerning to me that the Conservatives have refused to answer the question of whether they would scrap the industrial carbon price. That policy is doing the most work when it comes to emissions reductions. It is terrifying to me to think that they might scrap it, so I am very interested in having these conversations.
The information that was provided most recently answered the questions that I had. The only thing that is maybe niggling at me is that this document says the Statistics Act protects this information. I am unclear as to whether that is just an offhand comment letting us know that this information is protected generally, or that document is claiming that they would have provided more information but the Statistics Act protects the information so they couldn't. That is unclear to me, so if we had officials here to answer that, it would be helpful for my understanding of this privilege motion.
Thanks.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Three times now, this committee has requested the government's carbon pricing model. Three times now, the government's response has been wholly inadequate. The committee has been very patient with the government. We asked a second time. We went back and asked a third time. Every single time the response was inadequate.
In the most recent response we received from the government, it claimed that the carbon pricing model exists. It claimed that the model contains “4,000 equations” and “280,000 variables”, yet the government refuses to provide those equations and variables to the committee.
We're not too particular about whether it provides them in paper form, on a USB stick or in a link in an email it sends to us. However, as of yet, the government has not provided that model, which we have been requesting since last November.
I am very confident in supporting the motion that the committee's privilege has been violated. Therefore, this should be reported to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I listened to my Conservative colleague's presentation earlier. In fact, when I look more closely at his request as set out in his motion, I believe it's impossible to respond to it.
There's a Canadian law that requires Quebec and each province to have a price on carbon. We need to talk about carbon pricing rather than a carbon tax, because it doesn't apply in Quebec. The Conservatives recognized this in a motion they voted on with us in the House.
The carbon tax doesn't apply in two provinces: Quebec and British Columbia, which have carbon exchanges. If the Conservatives' goal is to get an overall picture of how much carbon emissions would be reduced as a result of carbon pricing, they won't get there, because their motion doesn't refer to carbon pricing, but rather to the carbon tax.
I don't want to defend my Liberal colleagues, because their environmental record is pitiful given the massive support they give to the oil and gas sector, but no one is held to the impossible.
In theory, it's completely impossible to get details on modelling by presenting a motion like this, because it would only allow us to obtain a single portion of the vision for reducing carbon emissions. For that reason, I believe that my colleague's motion doesn't hold water. We can't follow it logically because it's poorly worded.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
I'll just clarify something for my colleague from the Bloc. In one of these responses, step one is, “Preparation of a scenario that includes legislated federal, provincial, and territorial emission reduction policies.” Quebec's policy is included in the formula, and the government still hasn't produced the information or the data on how Quebec even works. They haven't done anything on this.
To Ms. Collins, as far as the targets are concerned, we all know the targets aren't being met, yet somehow—